Improving the livelihoods of the people in the Limpopo River
Basin in a sustainable manner is one of the objectives of the integrated
approach to catchment basin management. Understanding the human dimension is
critical to designing projects and programmes that will secure livelihoods based
on stable, productive and profitable use of natural resources, particularly land
use. This chapter describes the social, economic, policy and institutional
dimensions that affect the capacity of the people living in the Limpopo River
Basin to live with recurrent drought and climate variability.

Social and economic
characteristics

Population
characteristics

Chapter 2 described the biophysical diversity and challenges
facing integrated management in the Limpopo River Basin. These challenges are
reflected in the diversity of rural versus urban populations of the basin. In
Botswana and South Africa, the capital cities are situated in, and some of the
largest urban populations reside within, the basin boundaries, such as Gaborone,
Francistown, Pretoria, Polokwane, Thohoyandu and Witbank. Not reflected in the
basin population figures (Table 15) are other large urban centres (Johannesburg,
Maputo and Bulawayo) that lie on the fringes of the basin and influence, or are
influenced by, events and activities within the basin.

Aside from these urban centres, which for the most part are
located at the headwaters (or near the mouth in the case of Maputo), the Limpopo
River Basin is predominantly rural. On average, at the national level, the
population in the Limpopo River Basin countries is just more than 50 percent
rural - ranging from 31 percent in Botswana to 66 percent in Zimbabwe. However,
at the subnational and district level within the basin, the population is
predominantly rural - more than 60 percent. About 8 million people live in rural
areas within the Limpopo River Basin (Table 16).

Botswana

According to the 1991 census, nearly 46 percent of
Botswanas population was urban-based, an increase of 18 percent over the
1981 estimates (GOB, 1992b). While much of this growth is a consequence of the
continued expansion of the larger urban areas such as Gaborone and Francistown,
most of the increase is attributed to a reclassification of some larger villages
from rural to urban.

Eighty-three percent of Botswanas people live in the
eastern hardveldt region with its characteristics of better surface water and
groundwater availability, good communications, proximity to South Africa, access
to markets, and better-quality soils compared with the rest of the country. The
Limpopo River Basin covers most of the hardveldt and falls within the rural
administrative districts of North East, Central, Kgatleng and Kweneng. This
catchment area accounts for 59 percent of the countrys population and 28
percent of its area. The average national population density is only 2.3
persons/km2, although the highest population density is in the
districts of Kweneng (21 persons/km2) and Kgatleng (15
persons/km2) because of the location effects of greater Gaborone
(GOB, 1992b).

TABLE 15Selected statistics of the four basin
countries

Country

Total area

Area of country within basin

As % of total basin area

As % of total country area

Population of country in 1998

Population in basin

As % of country population

Population density in basin

(km2)

(km2)

(%)

(%)

(million)

(million)

(%)

(persons/km2)

Botswana

581 730

80 118

19

14

1.6

1.0

59

12.5

Mozambique

801 590

84 981

21

11

16.5

1.3

7

15.3

South Africa

1 221 040

185 298

45

15

42.1

10.7

24

57.7

Zimbabwe

390 760

62 541

15

16

11.4

1.0

9

16.0

Total

412 938

71.6

14.0

33.9

TABLE 16Estimates of rural population in the Limpopo
River Basin

Country/Province

2001 rural population estimates for basin
provinces

Botswana

835 000

Central

540 000

Kwaneng

190 000

Kgatleng

60 000

North East

45 000

Mozambique

1 045 000

Gaza

1 000 000

Inhambane

45 000

South Africa

5 400 000

Gauteng

100 000

Limpopo

4 300 000

Mpumalanga

500 000

North West

500 000

Zimbabwe

900 000

Matabeleland South

550 000

Masvingo

250 000

Midlands

100 000

Total

8 180 000

Note: Estimates based on provincial and not
basin-specific figures.

Although the population of Botswana is small, it has had one
of the highest growth rates in Africa (3.5 percent). This high growth rate has
created an age structure with a very high ratio of children (unproductive) to
adults (productive). Nearly 43 percent of the countrys population was
below the age of 15 years in 1991. The young age structure of the population
will probably persist for some time owing to high fertility levels and
increasing infant and child survival rates. In the period 1992-2001, the growth
rate was 2.67 percent (GOB, 2002).

Migration has played an important role in the dynamics of the
countrys population through either permanent urban migration or through
seasonally changing settlement patterns. However, the effect of the latter is
less than it was during the 1970s and 1980s as a result of more settlements
being provided with piped water and other social services. In 1981, some 50
percent of the population were enumerated within 200 km of Gaborone. By 1991, 50
percent of the countrys population resided within 100 km of the
capital.

Mozambique

The Limpopo River Basin in Mozambique falls almost entirely
within Gaza Province. It also covers portions of three districts in Inhambane
Province. The catchment area of the Limpopo River Basin represents 11 percent of
the total national land area and includes just more than 7 percent of the total
population. The density of the population within the Limpopo River Basin ranges
from 1 person/km2 in Chigubo District to more than 100
persons/km2 in rural Xai-Xai District. The basinwide average in
Mozambique of 15 persons/km2 compares with a national population
density of 21 persons/km2. The population density in Gaza Province
follows very closely the major agro-ecological zones and biophysical
characteristics (Chapter 2). Market accessibility and infrastructure have also
had a strong influence on where settlements have developed.

The percentage of the population living in urban and rural
areas in Gaza Province depends in part on the definition of an urban area.
According to GOM-INE (1999b), nearly 93 percent of Gaza Province was considered
rural, with the city of Xai-Xai on the coast the only urban centre. The 1997
census (GOM-INE, 1999a) included more of the major towns in the definition of an
urban area (e.g. Chibuto, Chokwé and Macia), giving a rural percentage of
75 percent. Either way, the area is predominantly rural and the population
density decreases significantly with distance from the coast and the
Chokwé area.

South Africa

Nearly 45 percent of the total population of South Africa
lives in the four northern provinces (Limpopo, North West, Mpumalanga and
Gauteng). Limpopo Province is almost completely contained within the Limpopo
River Basin, as are parts of North West, Mpumalanga and Gauteng Provinces.
Limpopo Province is by far the most dominant administrative zone in the basin -
representing more than half of the rural population - for a total of more than 4
million people.

The average population density of South Africa is about 33
persons/km2 (GOSA-StatsSA, 2001b). The distribution is very skewed,
with the majority of the population living in the coastal provinces and around
Johannesburg and Pretoria. The population density ranges from less than 2
persons/km2 in Northern Cape, to 40 persons/km2 in Limpopo
Province and more than 430 persons/km2 in Gauteng.

Population density is particularly high in the former
homelands. This is largely attributed to past migration policies, which
prevented the African population from migrating out of the homeland areas.
Migration has also played a significant role in redistributing South
Africas population, especially since the formation of the new republic in
1994. Interprovincial migration data for 1992-96 indicate that Limpopo Province
and Gauteng Province lost a large number of people through outmigration.
However, Gauteng Province was also the most popular migration destination in the
country (GOSA-NPU, 2000).

Zimbabwe

According to the population census of 1992, about 8 percent of
Zimbabwes population resided in the Limpopo River Basin, then estimated at
850 000 people, and currently estimated at just more than 1 million. The Limpopo
catchment area in Zimbabwe falls predominantly in Matabeleland South Province,
as well as portions of two districts in Masvingo Province (Mwenezi and Chiredzi)
and one district in Midlands Province (Mberengwa).

The average population density in the semi-arid regions of the
Limpopo River Basin is generally low, ranging from 6 persons/km2 in
Beitbridge District to 23 persons/km2 in Umzingwane, adjacent to
Bulawayo, compared with 30 persons/km2 at the national level.
However, the primarily rural district of Mberengwa has a population density of
37 persons/km2, comparable with the more densely populated rural
areas around Harare.

HIV/AIDS

Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is home to about 70 percent of the 36
million people currently living with HIV/AIDS worldwide. In this region, an
estimated 3.8 million adults and children became infected with HIV in 2000,
bringing the total number of people living there with HIV/AIDS to 25.3 million.
In the same period, millions of Africans infected in earlier years began
experiencing ill health, and 2.4 million people at a more advanced stage of
infection died of HIV-related illness.

Although SSA heads the list as the region with the largest
annual number of new infections, there may be a new trend on the horizon:
regional HIV incidence appears to be stabilizing. Because the long-standing
African epidemics have already reached large numbers of people whose behaviour
exposes them to HIV, and because effective prevention measures in some countries
have enabled people to reduce their risk of exposure, the annual number of new
infections has stabilized or even fallen in many countries. These decreases have
now begun to balance out rising infection rates in other parts of Africa,
particularly the southern part of the continent.

Among the countries of the world hardest hit by HIV/AIDS are
South Africa and Botswana (Table 17). In Botswana, almost 36 percent of all
adults are infected with HIV/AIDS. Life expectancy has dropped from 61 years
seven years ago to 39 years today, and the figure is projected to fall below 29
years by 2010. Without HIV/AIDS, it would have been more than 66 years. The
epidemic began in South Africa much later than it did in other countries in
Africa. By the mid-1990s, infection rates among pregnant woman were increasing
rapidly. South Africa is now facing one of the most serious epidemics in the
world (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001).

The provinces that are within or largely within the basin may
not always be representative of the basin country at large. In Botswana, the
highly populated areas of the basin districts (parts or all of the Kweneng,
Southern, South-East, Kgatleng and Central Districts) are relatively highly
affected. In Mozambique, Gaza Province (covering the basin area) appears not to
be among the most highly affected. In South Africa, Limpopo Province is less
affected than the provinces of Mpumalanga, Gauteng and North West (parts of
which are within the basin). Urban and mining centres (with the exception of the
Western Cape) appear to be most affected. In Zimbabwe, Matabeleland South is
slightly less affected than Manicaland and Masvingo Provinces in the east (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2001).

The effects of HIV/AIDS are far reaching. It has a severe
effect on affected households, children and their schooling, the level of
services rendered, and on business and economic growth. HIV/AIDS creates new
pockets of poverty where parents and breadwinners die and children leave school
earlier in order to support the remaining children. Affected households bear the
brunt of the misery caused by the epidemic. Rising sickness and death often take
place against a background of deteriorating public services, poor employment
prospects and endemic poverty that are not directly related to the HIV epidemic,
but that may be exacerbated by it (UNAIDS-WHO, 2000).

HIV is reducing the numbers of children in school.
HIV-positive women have fewer babies, in part because they may die before the
end of their childbearing years, and up to one-third of their children are
themselves infected and may not survive to school age. Many children who have
lost their parents to AIDS, or are living in households which have taken in AIDS
orphans, may be forced to drop out of school in order to start earning money, or
simply because school fees have become unaffordable. Teacher shortages may be
looming (UNAIDS-WHO, 2000).

Some recent survey results show just how great the future
impact of HIV is likely to be on business. A 1999 study among miners in southern
Africa found that more than one-third of employees in their late 20s and 30s
were infected with HIV, as were one-quarter of young and older employees. Rates
among workers in other sectors are similarly high, at least in South Africa. For
example, in a sugar mill, 26 percent of all workers were living with HIV. There,
as in the mining industry, HIV rates were higher among unskilled workers than
among managerial-level workers (UNAIDS-WHO, 2000).

It remains exceptionally difficult to gauge the macroeconomic
impact of the epidemic. Despite incomplete data, there is growing evidence that
as HIV prevalence rates rise, both total and growth in national income (GDP)
fall significantly. In South Africa, where per capita income is six times the
average for SSA and the national economy accounts for 40 percent of the total
economic output of the region, the overall economic growth rate in the next
decade is likely to be 0.3 to 0.4 percentage points lower every year than it
would have been without AIDS. Cumulating the slower economic growth over time,
by 2010, real GDP may well be 17 percent lower than it would have been in the
absence of AIDS. In terms of current value, that would wipe US$22 000 million
off South Africas economy - more than twice the entire national production
of any other country in the region except Nigeria (UNAIDS-WHO, 2000).

AIDS is likely to cause skills shortages in most sectors of
the economy, creating major bottlenecks in business and production. This will be
exacerbated by its undermining effect on education, and on the potential to
expand skills as quickly as they are needed. HIV infection rates are highest
among individuals in the workforce without special skills; so are the
unemployment rates (about 30 percent in South Africa). Thus, in theory,
individuals who are not currently employed may replace unskilled workers dying
of AIDS. The skills shortage can be expected to be even more acute in
neighbouring

Botswana, which is already importing white-collar workers
(UNAIDS-WHO, 2000). There are indications that AIDS is starting to have negative
affects on resource-poor agriculture. For example, with respect to Zimbabwe, the
United Nations (UN) Relief and Recovery Unit noted productivity has been
severely affected in the agriculture sector as a direct result of the HIV/AIDS
pandemic in the country (UN-IRIN, 2003).

Human development and
poverty

The rural population of about 8 million people living in the
Limpopo River Basin face special challenges to make a living. The biophysical
description in Chapter 2 showed that this area is predominantly semi-arid, with
little arable land and very low potential for agriculture. Two related concepts
that are useful for measuring how people are doing are human
development and poverty. Human development can be thought of as the process of
enlarging peoples choices so that they can live longer and healthier lives
(SADC-UNDP, 1998). This is usually measured in terms of educational and health
opportunities, as well as some measure of wealth or standard of living (Box 14).
Poverty is usually defined as living below a certain income or income-poverty
threshold, but it has many dimensions (IFAD, 2001).

BOX 14

Human development and poverty indices

The Human Development Index (HDI) was introduced in 1990 as an
attempt to measure and rank countries according to progress in human development
beyond a simple gross national product figure. Instead of using only a financial
measure, the HDI is a composite of three basic components of human
development:

longevity - as measured by life expectancy;

knowledge - as
measured by a combination of adult literacy (two-thirds weight) and mean years
of schooling (one-third weight);

standard of living -
as measured by purchasing power, based on real GDP per capita adjusted for the
local cost of living (purchasing power parity).

The index ranges from 0 to 1. Although useful at the global
scale, indices at the national level can conceal much that is happening within
the country. The best solution would be to create separate HDIs for the most
significant groups, e.g. by gender or by income group. Separate HDIs would
reveal a more detailed profile of human deprivation in each country and
disaggregated HDIs have been conducted in some SADC countries.

Similarly, human poverty is usually defined as living below a
certain income level or income poverty line. From a human development
perspective, poverty means the denial of choices and opportunities most basic to
human development, including deprivation in health and survival, lack of
knowledge, denial of opportunities for a creative and productive life, social
exclusion, lack of freedom, as well as deprivation in income. Therefore, the
Human Poverty Index (HPI) was proposed in 1997 as a new way of measuring poverty
in developing countries. The index measures the proportion of the population
affected by three key deprivations affecting their lives:

deprivation in survival - measured by the percentage of people expected to die
before age 40;

deprivation in
knowledge - measured by the percentage of illiterate adults;

deprivation in
economic provisioning - measured by the percentage of people without
access to health services and safe water, as well as the percentage of
underweight children under five.

The index ranges from 0 (low) to 100 (high). No class limits
are given for low, moderate and high.

The HDI and HPI can be useful alternatives to gross national
product for measuring the relative socioeconomic progress of nations. They
enable people and their governments to evaluate progress over time - and to
determine priorities for policy interventions. They also enable instructive
comparisons of the experiences in different countries.

Source: SADC-UNDP (1998); UNDP (2003).

Table 18 gives selected national-level HDI values (see Box 14)
for the countries in the Limpopo River Basin. At the national level, as of 1998,
three of the four countries were in the medium (values between 0.500 and 0.790)
human development range: South Africa, Botswana, and Zimbabwe (SADC-UNDP, 1998).
Mozambique has the lowest HDI value in the region (0.374), although in
percentage terms, the situation has been improving steadily (GOM-UNDP, 1999).
The impact of the HIV/AIDS pandemic on life expectancy is an important factor in
slowing the growth, or reducing the HDI, especially for Botswana, South Africa
and Zimbabwe.

As income is an important component of the HDI, an unequal
distribution of income may skew the results, especially at the national level.
Income inequality can be estimated by the Gini coefficient, which is defined as
the maximum vertical deviation between the perfect diagonal and the Lorenz
curve, which is a graphical representation of the proportionality of a
distribution. The higher the Gini coefficient, the greater the inequality.
Southern Africa has some of the highest Gini coefficients in the world and,
therefore, it is appropriate to apply an adjustment for income inequality to the
HDI values. The national-level HDI values for Botswana, South Africa and
Zimbabwe drop dramatically, by more than 20 percent, when adjusted for income
inequality. Thus, Botswana and Zimbabwe drop to an HDI of about 0.50 and South
Africa moves to 0.60, which is perhaps more representative of the majority of
the people living in the rural areas of these countries.

Although it is difficult to make comparisons across the four
countries at the subnational level, there is also great disparity in HDI values
between geographical regions and urban and rural areas.

TABLE 18Selected human development and poverty
indicators for the basin countries

Country

Global HDI(1998)

Global HPI-1(1998)

People notexpected to live toage 40
(1998)(%)

Adult
illiteracyrate(%)

Population withoutaccess to
safewater (1998)(%)

Underweightchildren underage five
(1998)(%)

Botswana

0.593

28.3

37.1

24.4

10.0

17.0

Mozambique

0.341

50.7

41.9

57.4

54.0

26.0

South Africa

0.697

20.2

25.9

15.4

13.0

9.0

Zimbabwe

0.555

30.0

41.0

12.8

21.0

15.0

However, the HDI is generally lower (higher HPI) in more
remote rural areas, where education, health and employment opportunities are
more limited.

Botswana

Botswana has completed two national-level human development
reports in recent years. A 1997 report recommended nine issues to be considered
for future human development studies, the first being conducted in 2000 on the
theme Towards an AIDS free generation (GOB-UNDP, 2000). This report
provides a detailed assessment of the impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic on
Botswanas society. With the highest reported HIV prevalence rate in the
world, Botswana has recognized the importance of integrating a HIV/AIDS strategy
with national development and poverty reduction.

The Botswana HPI was calculated using the percentage of
children that die before the age of 5 years as a measure of a long and healthy
life, not the percentage of people who will not survive 40 years of age. The HPI
reveals that more than 25 percent of the population live in human poverty. The
HPI values for rural areas are nearly double those in the urban areas - 39.0
compared with 16.8. These disparities are closely linked to available services
such as schooling, water supply and health care (GOB-UNDP, 2000).

Mozambique

Mozambique has also produced several national-level human
development reports in recent years, although the values are at the provincial
level (GOM-UNDP, 1998 and 1999). Severe problems of poverty still exist in
Mozambique, affecting nearly 70 percent of the population, or 10.9 million
people, according to the latest poverty assessment (GOM-UNDP, 1998). The
incidence is higher in rural than in urban areas, with rural headcount reaching
71.2 percent compared with 62.0 percent in urban areas. The incidence of poverty
is highest in the central region, whereas the north and south are nearly equal.
However, if Maputo city - which has low rates relative to the rest of the
country - is excluded from the southern region, the remainder of the southern
region (including Gaza Province) has poverty rates higher than the northern
region, and not significantly different from the central region.

Nationally, the average household size is 4.8 persons, but
among the poor the average household size is 5.6 persons compared with 3.6
persons for the non-poor. The difference is more pronounced in the rural areas
(5.5 persons for the poor, 3.3 persons for the non-poor) than in urban areas
(6.0 persons for the poor, 4.7 persons for non-poor). Only 32 percent of the
adult rural population and 71 percent of the adult urban population are
literate. The differences are greater between regions and sexes than between
levels of poverty; adult poor = 54 percent literate, adult non-poor = 63
percent, whereas, males = 59 percent and females = 24 percent (change of 36
percent) and urban rural change is 39 percentage points. Given the dependence of
the population on agricultural production, and the important role played by
women in agricultural activity, the extremely low literacy rate of rural women
has serious implications for agricultural productivity in the country (GOM-UNDP,
1998).

South Africa

The national-level HDI varies across geographical regions in
South Africa. Gauteng Province has the highest HDI in South Africa (0.717) while
Limpopo Province has the lowest at 0.531 (GOSA-StatsSA, 2001a). There is also a
close relationship between HDI values, rural areas, and former homelands. For
example, Limpopo Province has the highest percentage of rural population (89
percent) and the highest percentage of the population living in former homeland
areas and the lowest HDI value at the national level.

According to a recent poverty study (Whiteford and Van
Seventer, 1999), 45 percent of South Africans are poor. The figure is even
higher in mainly rural areas, and Limpopo Province has the highest poverty rate
in the country - nearly 80 percent - compared with 45 percent nationwide, and 32
percent in Gauteng (GOSA-StatsSA, 2001a). Another national report (GOSA-NPU,
2000) further emphasizes the relative poverty and lack of human development in
Limpopo Province. Some characteristics of Limpopo Province taken from this
report include:

highest percentage
of economically active females (50 percent);

one of the lowest percentages
of economically active population (21 percent);

one of the highest
unemployment rates (46 percent);

lowest percentage of people
with inside tap water and flush toilets;

youngest population, 63
percent are under age 24 years;

highest percentage of
population aged 20 with no schooling (35 percent).

Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe has also produced two national-level human
development reports, one focusing on poverty (GOZ-UNDP, 1998) and one focusing
on globalization (GOZ-UNDP, 1999). The 1998 report discusses the relationship
between poverty and health issues and economic development. The report states
that although some progress has been made, the 1990s witnessed decreased income
levels, a contraction of social expenditure, and low levels of economic growth.
HIV/AIDS is also taking its toll and reducing life expectancy.

In terms of HDI and HPI characteristics, Zimbabwe also
exhibits a disparity between geographical regions and between urban and rural
communities. At the national level, Matabeleland South Province ranks highest
(best) in terms of HDI or HPI. Four of the six districts in this province have
HDI values greater than 0.60, which is near the national average of 0.62 (Table
19). Beitbridge District is the lowest in the Province, comparable with
Mberengwa District (Midlands Province). The two districts in Masvingo Province,
Mwenezi and Chiredzi, are ranked 74 and 65, respectively, out of the 77
districts and urban centres listed in the 1999 report.

Gwanda (urban) ranked first out of all 77 districts and urban
centres in terms of lowest (best) HPI, higher than Harare or Bulawayo urban
centres. This indicates good access to infrastructure (markets, schools, health
clinics, water, and electricity) as compared with the more remote districts,
which tend to be the poorest and least developed.

Livelihoods and food
security

Understanding how rural populations live and maintain their
livelihoods is crucial to understanding food security. As with many sectors
presented in this situation analysis, there has been no systematic analysis of
livelihoods and food-insecure populations conducted across the four countries of
the Limpopo River Basin. However, using these concepts in their broadest sense
(Box 15), the information that was obtained is presented to highlight the
general types of livelihood systems in the Limpopo River Basin. This information
is also useful for determining which populations are likely to be the most
chronically food-insecure as well as at risk of drought and other
climate-induced events.

TABLE 19Selected poverty comparisons for Zimbabwe
districts in the Limpopo River Basin

District

Non-survival to 40 years of age %

Illiteracy %

Underweight children %

Non-access to clean water %

No access to health care %

Living standard deprivation %

HPI

HDI

Mwenezi

22.0

39.1

30.3

31.7

0.7

20.9

29.8

0.44

Chiredzi

22.0

38.8

20.0

9.7

2.3

10.7

28.6

0.52

Beitbridge

16.9

37.8

10.0

14.2

3.4

9.3

27.1

0.55

Mberengwa

15.6

24.6

12.8

41.0

8.6

20.8

21.0

0.55

Bulilimamangwe

9.7

24.7

6.4

37.5

11.7

18.5

19.5

0.59

Matobo

7.7

18.5

9.0

34.1

9.3

17.7

15.9

0.60

Insiza

9.7

19.1

5.2

34.1

6.9

15.4

15.7

0.60

Gwanda rural

10.8

17.9

2.8

30.7

5.4

13.0

14.5

0.60

Umzingwane

9.7

14.7

9.3

18.7

1.0

9.6

11.9

0.62

Gwanda urban

12.0

6.6

0.0

0.8

0.0

0.3

8.7

0.67

Zimbabwe urban

16.9

19.6

10.0

1.0

8.8

3.7

16.0

0.62

Zimbabwe rural

16.9

19.6

14.7

36.5

8.8

17.1

17.9

0.62

Source: GOZ-UNDP (1999).

BOX 15

Livelihoods and vulnerability assessments

Research in recent decades has led to a wealth of methods and
approaches for analysing and monitoring livelihoods and food security. The
concept of using some form of livelihood system (LHS) is becoming common as the
basis for development planning, understanding food security, as well as
responding to various types of emergencies for many development and response
agencies and organizations. Many agencies have incorporated LHS concepts into
their programming cycles and development programmes (e.g. FAO and
UNDP).

In general, the LHS approach is a systematic and structured
way to understand how people make their living so that development and emergency
response interventions can be matched more appropriately with their real needs.
The basic objective is to analyse in a holistic way the various components
(physical, natural, social, economic and human) that make up the livelihood
structure (see DFID, 1998). These components, and the linkages and interactions
between them, can than be studied to determine which factors are the most
important, and which ones are least stable. In this way, more appropriate
interventions can be developed. Participatory methods are encouraged so that the
perspectives of the people are captured in the process.

Vulnerability assessment methods and techniques have been
developed to help identify and understand food-insecure populations, generally
using LHS concepts as the basis. Most methods respond to the basic definition of
food security as given by the World Food Summit in 1996: when all people,
at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and
nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an
active and healthy life. Most use some combination of the generally
accepted pillars of food security (food availability, access and
utilization) in order to identify who does not meet the criterion.

As with livelihood analysis, there is no standardized approach
to vulnerability assessments, although there is general agreement on basic
concepts and components to consider. The outcomes may vary in terms of scale and
level of detail, but the results of a vulnerability assessment should identify:
(i) who and where are the most food insecure or vulnerable to becoming food
insecure (to help prioritize/target populations for development/emergency
interventions); and (ii) an understanding of why they are vulnerable (to help
prioritize the appropriate type of intervention to meet their needs).

The analysis of livelihoods and vulnerability are also linked
closely to some of the previous sections that discussed various biophysical and
socio-economic characteristics, such as the risk of a drought occurring, the
type of land use and farming systems, and poverty characteristics. More detailed
surveys are needed to better understand the dynamics of livelihood systems and
the relationship to food security, for example, between the various sources of
own production and income, especially in these drought-prone, marginal
production areas.

Various organizations listed in the sources under Box 15, as
well as many others at national and local levels, are involved in livelihoods
and vulnerability analysis. Efforts are underway to harmonize approaches and
build capacity within the SADC region in order to build baseline information and
expertise in this area (SADC, 2000).

Botswana

Although the agriculture sector of Botswana contributes only 4
percent to the national GDP and formal sector employment, 65 percent of the
population within the Limpopo catchment area live on agricultural holdings and
derive their livelihood mainly from agricultural activities (Table 20). More
than 70 percent of these agricultural holders can be found in Central District
and in Kweneng District.

TABLE 20Profile of the traditional agriculture sector
in Botswana

Characteristic

Administrative districts

Limpopo River Basin

Botswana total

North East

Central

Kgatleng

Kweneng

Population on agricultural holdings

79 200

161 170

28 150

116 200

384 720

584 280

Households with cattle (%)

39.9

60.9

60.1

46.2

52.8

53.1

Households with land (%)

94.2

63.8

79.3

72.7

73.5

69.6

Full-time farmers (%)

83.9

77.2

73.9

82.3

79.5

80.4

Source: GOB-FAO (1995).

Increasing demographic pressures are causing farm holdings to
decrease in size, resulting in reduced options for grazing livestock, and
consequently small ruminants are replacing cattle. The trends have created
peri-urban production systems that include larger-scale commercial and intensive
enterprises characterized by specialization and intensive market orientation,
e.g. poultry, pigs, milk and beef feedlot systems, generally located near
centres of consumption.

There is very little formal sector employment in Botswana
rural areas. One report (GOB-CSO, 1996) indicates that for all rural areas in
1994, business profits accounted for only 15 percent of average household
income, compared with 43 percent from cash earnings, 19 percent from the value
of own produce consumed, and 14 percent from remittances from family members in
urban formal employment. Income and expenditure data contained within the report
show that the average rural household in Botswana was 51 percent self-sufficient
in 1993/94 in terms of food requirement by value, compared with 68 percent in
1985/86.

The interplay between agricultural and nonagricultural
activities has long existed in rural areas. The World Bank (1990) and others
have suggested that the core strategy to alleviate poverty must be to create
employment and increase rural incomes.

Low incomes in
rural areas. Income is highly skewed in favour of urban households, with more
than half of rural households living below the poverty line. Average rural
household income was 37 percent of similar urban households, which is similar to
the 1985/86 average, indicating that there has been no real relative improvement
in rural income in the last two decades. Cash income for rural households is at
an even lower level (28 percent of urban household cash income).

The poorest of the poor. Of
the households measured in the 1993/94 HIES survey, and in the poorest quintile,
16 percent are urban households and 64 percent rural.

Lack of rural employment
opportunities. There continue to be few rural economic opportunities outside of
farming, as only 32 percent of rural household heads are employed, compared with
79 percent for urban households.

Low improvement in social
conditions. Most social indicators (malnutrition, education levels, mortality,
literacy, and living conditions) are significantly worse in rural areas
(GOB-UNICEF, 1993).

Gender issues. Females head 52
percent of rural households. Such households have significantly lower incomes
and access to employment than male-headed households.

Mozambique

Mozambique has been involved in livelihood and food security
analysis for many years. In the early 1990s, Medicins Sans Frontiere (MSF)
developed a system to classify each district in Mozambique according to several
vulnerability indicators. These structural vulnerability assessments are used to
determine those areas or populations that are faced with chronic food
insecurity. Table 21 describes structural vulnerability for Gaza Province. Only
four variables are listed here to illustrate the methodology. Severe risk of
drought includes those districts with less than 600 mm/year of rainfall, where
extended dry periods are typical. At moderate risk of drought are those
districts that normally receive more than 600 mm/year of rainfall but can be
adversely affected by regular climatic variations. At risk of flood are those
areas that are low-lying and experience periodic flooding that can be
detrimental to crop production. Self-sufficiency is a measure of the total food
produced (cereals, tubers, etc.) from own production from the two agricultural
seasons, in terms of months of consumption. Finally, structural vulnerability is
determined by combining all of the different data layers listed above, i.e.
climate, agricultural production, livestock, sources of income, access to
markets, and coping strategies. The result is a relative scale ranging from none
to food crisis.

TABLE 21Structural vulnerability in Gaza
Province

District

Severe risk of drought

Moderate risk of drought

Risk of flood

Self-sufficiency (months)

Structural vulnerability

Xai-Xai

X

X

10-12

None

Bilene Macia

X

X

10-12

None

Manjacaze

X

X

10-12

None

Chokwé

X

X

10-12

None

Chibuto

X

X

10-12

None

Guija

X

7-9

Slight

Massingir

X

7-9

Slight

Mabalane

X

5-6

Economic

Massangena

X

5-6

Economic

Chicualacuala

X

5-6

Food insecure

Chigubo

X

3-4

Food insecure

Source: MSF-CIS (1998).

Gaza Province has the most districts of all provinces in
Mozambique that suffer from structural vulnerability. This is especially the
case in the four northernmost districts of the province - Massangena,
Chicualacuala, Mabalane and Chigubo. These areas are particularly arid, with an
increased risk of drought, very poor soils and low agricultural potential. The
people living there typically produce only half of their annual food consumption
needs (less than 6 months). With poor access to markets and limited alternative
sources of income the people in these areas are chronically food insecure (Box
16).

For Gaza Province, changing eating habits (reduced meals) and
intensifying the search for part-time work to generate income were identified as
principal coping strategies. Other strategies employed (depending on the
district) include: intensifying fishing and hunting; sale of charcoal and
fuelwood; sale of livestock; and in the worst case, moving the family (MSF-CIS,
1998). Other livelihood surveys conducted in Gaza Province highlight the
importance of remittances from South Africa to maintain household food security
(Diriba, Getachew and Cooke, 1995; FEWS NET, 2001). These studies also discuss
the importance of diversified farming systems, i.e. planting various types of
crops in at least two fields (one in the more productive, but flood-prone
lowlands, as well as one on higher ground) to spread the risk from drought or
floods and enhance household income.

Another system that was developed was the Food Security and
Nutrition Survey (FSNS) to monitor, collect, analyse and interpret information
about the food security and nutritional status at subdistrict level (FAO, 1997).
The FSNS characterizes the basic livelihood economies and the factors that
influence production, sales, consumption, food needs, and health. In recognition
of the variability within a district, the data collected for each district are
further subdivided into three wealth classes: poor, medium, and rich. The FSNS
subdivides Gaza Province into two zones: a productive coastal zone, and an arid
zone.

In the productive coastal zone (Bilene-Macia, Xai-Xai,
Manjacaze, Chokwé, Guijá and Chibuto), conditions are favourable
for agricultural production with relatively fertile soils and
climate. The principal staple crops are maize, manioc and rice, and cash crops
include fruits, such as mafurra (castor beans), mango, oranges, cashew, tobacco,
cotton and sugar cane. The local markets in these areas are fairly well
developed and accessible. Poor families in this area manage to produce 50-60
percent of their basic needs, and the rest comes from the sale of cash crops,
animals, local beer, working as a labourer in nearby fields, donations, and
remittances from family members in South Africa.

The arid zone (Massangena, Chicualacuala, Chigubo, Mabalane
and Massingir) has poor soils for agriculture and the rainfall is low and
irregular. Most of the agriculture is along the rivers, and the main crops are
maize, sorghum, millet and cassava. Livestock was an important activity in the
area but suffered heavily during the war. The roads are not so developed and
they are in poor condition, which makes transport and marketing difficult. Poor
households manage to acquire food through purchases, remittances and donations.
Other principal sources of household income are the sale of traditional
beverage, charcoal, fuelwood and animals.

BOX 16

Livelihood study in Massangena District, Gaza Province,
Mozambique

FAO conducted livelihood studies in several provinces in
Mozambique in 1998. The objective was to obtain comprehensive information about
traditional farming practices in areas subject to tsetse and trypanosomiasis.
Farm and non-farm activities were analysed to identify the linkages that could
affect (directly or indirectly) the impact of the disease. An additional
objective was to examine the scope for poverty alleviation through livestock and
crop development strategies.

The survey was conducted in August and September 1998 in three
districts in south-central Mozambique. The total number of households surveyed
was 2 231, with 548 in Massangena District, the northernmost district in Gaza
Province. This district is mostly in the Limpopo River Basin and partly in the
Save River Basin, adjacent to Gonarezhou National Park in Zimbabwe. There were 2
694 households within the district at the time of the survey. At 6.6 persons per
household, this converts to 17 780 people.

Some salient points derived from this survey are:

The
district is very remote and transport conditions are generally poor.

Average annual
rainfall is very low (400-600 mm) and soils have very low agricultural
potential.

Main crop is finger
millet - grown by 93 percent of households - with an average yield about 400-500
kg/ha.

Maize, although
technically unsuited, is grown by 80 percent of households, with crop failure
common.

The average
household grows 7 crops - more than 50 percent of households grow 7 or more
crops, a risk reduction strategy to cope with erratic rainfall
patterns.

Overall, 35 percent
of adults generated income from non-agricultural sources such as trading,
off-farm employment, small business activities, handicrafts and
brewing.

In Massangena
District, the earnings from these sources in 1997 were about US$250
000.

39 percent earned
income from handicrafts; 37 percent from brewing; 47 percent from remittances -
although in small amounts and no more than twice a year.

Regarding livestock ownership:

Cattle
are owned by only 9 percent of households.

32 percent claimed
they had previously owned cattle but lost them during the war.

For those that own
or hold cattle, the average herd size is 11 head.

69 percent did not
own goats, and 10 percent of households owned about one-third of all
goats.

Chickens were owned
by 75 percent of households, and ownership was again skewed, with 10 percent of
the population owning 59 percent of the chickens.

66 percent of
households owned only chickens and no other forms of livestock.

Less than 1 percent
owned pigs.

More than 90 percent
of the cattle sold were sold to obtain cash for a specific purpose, e.g. to pay
for clothes, school fees, purchase food, buy more cattle, purchase farm assets
(ploughs), or pay medical expenses.

One study of the livelihood conditions in North West Province
examined the population structure according to four categories: rural dwellers,
rural producers, self-sufficient subsistence farmers, and farmers
(Data Research Africa, 1995). Similar studies have not been conducted for the
entire basin area, but the categories and general relationships probably apply
throughout. These subcategories are described below (with the relative
percentage in each category in the North West Province study area in
parenthesis).

Rural dwellers (22
percent). Rural dwellers use these areas as rural dormitories and they do not
cultivate crops or run stock. Nationally, the proportion of rural households
falling into this category is about 30 percent. These households could either be
marginalized (unemployed or otherwise poverty-stricken) or urbanizing households
(where husband and/or wife are likely to be migrants working in urban
areas).

Rural producers (35 percent).
This category is characterized the breadwinner being either a migrant or a
commuter. They are engaged in a number of economic activities, including some
very minor forms of agricultural production. The largest barrier to increased
agricultural production is the non-availability of labour.

Self-sufficient
subsistence farmers (34 percent). This category includes emerging
farmers with very small herds of livestock and an inclination to expand
agricultural production, but insufficient farm resources prevent them from doing
so. Alternatively, they are likely to be smaller or ageing households who farm
small plots efficiently. Subsistence farming is not a very accurate
description in that remittances may still be received, and small surplus
production could be sold.

Farmers (9 percent). These
households are true farmers in that they have access to larger plots of land and
run larger herds. The vast majority of these farmers are livestock producers or
full-time farmers who make their living out of marketing farm produce. The major
barrier to agricultural production is the lack of access to specialized
resources.

GOSA-StatsSA also conducted a rural survey in 1997. The aim of
the survey was to better understand the economies of the rural population to
determine, especially: their reliance on subsistence agriculture, the impacts of
high unemployment, low-income levels, and, poor infrastructure and service
provision. Five of the study areas in the rural survey were in North West and
Limpopo Provinces. Results from this study revealed:

The average number
of people per household was 5.5.

Most household heads were
female, 71 percent of farm decision-makers were female.

Approximately 50 percent of
respondent households occupied one dwelling constructed using brick and
mortar.

Only 32 percent had access to
electricity, 25 percent to piped water.

Most households (55 percent)
had been allocated agricultural land by the tribal authority with only 20
percent having title to their land.

The vast majority (95 percent)
of grazing land was communal.

Few farmers (less than 12
percent) had received formal training.

About 35 percent of respondent
households were engaged in farming activities.

Only 7 percent were engaged in
farming as their sole source of income; almost 11 percent worked for a salary or
commission, a further 3 percent had informal employment.

The most important sources of
income were: salaries and wages from household members (45 percent); pension,
disability and maintenance grants (27 percent); and remittances from family
members living elsewhere (20 percent).